In Demand Cutting Shootout Package Back

Discussion in 'Business and Media' started by Dixie Blue, Aug 31, 2002.

  1. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC

    Thanks for really being the voice of reason on this thread. :rolleyes:
     
  2. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The ad on MLSnet disagrees:

    http://www.mlsnet.com/library/2002/ontv.html

    iN DEMAND - where available, package includes every MLS regional broadcast (regardless of the originating network)
    1-888-SPORTS-iN, online at www.indemand.com
    cost (residential): $49.00; cost (commercial): $150, $300

    (Bold was added by me)
     
  3. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    It may be, then, that InDemand broke a contract with MLS but not, in the end, with the consumers.
     
  4. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Or maybe MLS, in promoting their program on the Web site, trusted that iNDemand would not follow up on the fine print in their advertisement. What you showed was not an advertisement from the people selling it so you can't really focus on that.

    I have said since Friday exactly what Knave just said. MLS might have action here. We don't. I suggest people put a little more energy into getting this week's games on TV and a little less into trying out for "Judge Joe Borwn."
     
  5. GoDC

    GoDC Member

    Nov 23, 1999
    Hamilton, VA
    Do to some odd circumstances, I was not home this weekend and also did not remember to set any tapes. Is there any action I can take against MLS or Dish since I was not able to see the games?? They may or may not have been on at my house.
     
  6. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Jul 21, 2000
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Without dealing with the rest of this nonsense, I will only say that an oral contract is worth roughly the paper it's printed on.
     
  7. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  8. John_Harkes_6

    John_Harkes_6 New Member

    Mar 29, 2000
    Baltimore, MD.
    Thank you - no way will an oral contract ever hold up in this case simply because you never had an oral contract with iNDemand. You had an oral contract with your cable company. You can not have an oral contract with someone you have never talked to.

    The lawsuit here would be cable company or MLS vs. iNDemand. Not Joe Schmoe vs. iNDemand.

    Facts:

    - iNDemand advertisement says "programming subject to change"

    - no one ever spoke to an iNDemand rep, only your cable company when ordering

    - you never signed an agreement laying out what the package was to include
     
  9. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Dude, reality is optional. :D
     
  10. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    Has anyone seen my pants?
     
  11. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes I have, and I CC'ed more than one mlsnet.com address on the email.
     
  12. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Good man! Suffice to say MLS knows where I stand so I'm trying not to bog them down with my e-mail but iNDemand has two from me.

    MLS is fighting for us on this one. I'd hazard a guess that since SUM didn't get up and running til so late that things will be easier for MLS to deal with next year. I still want my MLSTV. :D
     
  13. HartwickFan

    HartwickFan Member

    Jul 31, 1999
    Climax, MI
    Club:
    VfR Wormatia 08 Worms
    Nat'l Team:
    Tuvalu
    Thanks for the really insightful post showing what exactly was unreasonable in what I wrote. :rolleyes:
     
  14. HartwickFan

    HartwickFan Member

    Jul 31, 1999
    Climax, MI
    Club:
    VfR Wormatia 08 Worms
    Nat'l Team:
    Tuvalu
    What exactly did I write that is nonsense? Of course an oral contract is more difficult to prove than a written contract -- I'm not disagreeing with you there. I'm disagreeing with those who say "you didn't sign anything, therefore you don't have a contract" -- that's the nonsense! Sure, an oral contract isn't worth much, given the problems of proof, but do a quick search of a legal database and you'll have no problem finding hundreds of oral contracts that have been enforced.

    It's funny how many posters are quick to denounce a post as nonsense, but can't be bothered to explain what exactly was nonsense.
     
  15. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Jul 21, 2000
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    OK I said I would deal with it but I'll give you a short synopsis on two key points:

    1) The likelihood of actually getting a lawyer to deal with this that isn't living out of his El Dorado:

    You have to ask yourself how many people actually a) subscribe to MLS Shootout and b) out of those, how many are subscribers via digital cable NOT satellite and c) out of the number in (b) how many are willing to be part of a lawsuit. If that number is more than about 100, I'd be very surprised. Even if a lawyer takes half, that's a whopping $41 for the lawyer (assuming monster's earlier number of $.82 lost per subscriber).

    Even if it's, heck, 10,000 subscribers and the lawyer gets half, that's $4,100 for going up against all the lawyers of inDemand etc. And that's only if you WIN (based on an oral contract that doesn't exist)

    2) The likelihood of inDemand ever dealing with MLS again if a lawsuit happens: OK, I lied, I'm not even going to address this.
     
  16. HartwickFan

    HartwickFan Member

    Jul 31, 1999
    Climax, MI
    Club:
    VfR Wormatia 08 Worms
    Nat'l Team:
    Tuvalu
    Slow down there, fella. I agree with you that consumers probably had no contract with iNDemand. But it doesn't necessarily follow that, as you put it, "The lawsuit here would be cable company or MLS vs. iNDemand." First, a lawsuit need not be predicated solely on a breach of contract theory -- there are state and federal consumer protection/deceptive trade practices laws that may or may not provide a consumer with a cause of action. I'm not saying consumers would necessarily have a claim under these statutes, the point is simply that you can't just say "a consumer has no contract claim against iNDemand, therefore a consumer cannot be a plaintiff in a suit against iNDemand."

    Second, there is this doctrine in contract law called the doctrine of third party benificiaries that allows, under some circumstances, a person who was not actually a party to a contract to nonetheless sue for breach of the contract. In order to sue, the third party must show that he was an intended beneficiary of the contract and that he had a vested interest in the contract. Now, I'm not saying that consumer would necessarily be able to sue as third party beneficiaries of the contract, but the point is, you can't just say "the contract was between MLS or Cable Company and iNDemand, therefore consumers can't sue for breach of contract."

    Finally, the mere fact that the fine print says "programming subject to change" does not mean that consumers have no claim. There's a lot of fine print that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Do a search of a legal database and you'll see courts ignoring fine print all the time. An advertisement can still be misleading or deceptive, for purposes of consumer protection laws, even if the fine print is 100% accurate. Now, I'm not saying that the advertisements in this case are necessarily misleading. The point is that you can't just say "but look here -- the fine print says 'programming subject to change,' therefore you have no claim."
     
  17. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    You're welcome.
     
  18. HartwickFan

    HartwickFan Member

    Jul 31, 1999
    Climax, MI
    Club:
    VfR Wormatia 08 Worms
    Nat'l Team:
    Tuvalu
    Where in my post did I ever say that you could find a lawyer to take this case? I never said that -- that wasn't my point at all. My point was simply that the mere fact that damages are $1 per person
    doesn't mean that you'll never be able to find a lawyer to take the case -- whether it would be profitable to take the case depends on many more variables than just the amount of damages per person. I completely agree with you that whether the case would be profitable would depend on the size of the plaintiff class. And I completely agree with you that the size of the plaintiff class is likely to be prohibitively small. Again, I never said it would be profitable for a lawyer to take the case -- my point was only that the mere fact that damages are $1 per person doesn't really mean jack when it comes to determining whether it would be profitable for a lawyer to take the case.

    I agree with you that the plaintiff class is likely to be quite small, but whether a lawyer would find it worthwhile to take the case would depend on more than just the size of the plaintiff class.

    First, it would depend on the strength of plaintiffs' case -- if plaintiffs had a slam dunk (e.g., if a lawyer thought that he could get a favorable settlement after spending only 40 hours on the case), then you'll find no shortage of lawyers living in nice homes who would take the case if they thought they could make $4,000 on it. Lawyers for big corporations settle small claims all the time when the claims look like they have some merit. Now, I'm not saying that plaintiffs have a slam dunk here -- far from it. I agree with you that their contract claim looks weak. But I'm not an expert in state consumer protection laws, and I haven't studied all the relevant advertisements. So I'm not sure how strong their non-contract claims would be.

    Second, many state consumer protection laws have fee-shifting statutes that allow a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorney's fees. The amount of actual damages recovered therefore becomes largely irrelevant as far as determining whether a lawyer would find it profitable to take the case. Again, I'm not saying you could find a lawyer willing to take this case. My point is simply that you can't just say "oh, damages are at $10,000," therefore you'll never find a decent lawyer who will find it profitable to take the case.
     
  19. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Considering I work closely with a lot of lawyers, I brought this up to one of them who deals with contract law. And I brought it up with great hesitation.

    When he stops laughing about the idea of filing a lawsuit over this, I'll get back to you with his answer.
     
  20. bert patenaude

    Apr 16, 2001
    White Plains, NY
    As a lawyer and as one of the people who has been affected by this mess - I'm still laughing about filing a lawsuit over this matter. Let MLS fight the fight and keep e-mailing these guys.
     
  21. HartwickFan

    HartwickFan Member

    Jul 31, 1999
    Climax, MI
    Club:
    VfR Wormatia 08 Worms
    Nat'l Team:
    Tuvalu
    Ok, one more time, repeat after me: "there's more to law than contract law, there's more to law than contract law, there's more to law than contract law . . ."

    Let it sink in. Slowly. Now go back and ask your lawyer friend in contract law whether he thinks a consumer might have a claim under the relevant consumer protection/misleading advertising statute in, say, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania, or California, or Massachusetts.

    People, I'm not saying consumers would have a claim. I have no idea -- a lawyer would would have to study all the relevant advertisements and representations, and would have to research the standards for misleading advertising as defined by various state statutes. But no plaintiff's lawyer worth a dime would say "no contract claim, therefore no lawsuit."
     
  22. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's right, let's trust "I'm not a lawyer" guy. Silly me.

    You are completely irrelevant in this discussion because your inability to focus on reality and your constant "You can sue on this, but you can't sue on this." I asked an law professor who has more varied and significant achievements than I can ever dream of, someone who has been trusted to argue more than one different issue before SCOTUS and, just because I phrased my observation here one way, you're about to give me a lecture on the scope of law.

    Troll.

    Back to fighting the fight worth fighting - who has e-mailed iNDemand today?
     
  23. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Jul 21, 2000
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    So when you said

    you didn't mean that a lawyer would take the case? Thanks for clearing that up.

    I'm dying to know what else a lawyer would consider.

    That's $100 an hour. Unless you're hiring from Podunk, ND, you're not going to get much lawyer for $100 an hour.

    So why would they settle this one? No merit.


    And to find a lawyer who is an expert in all these fields will either a) cost a butt-load (industry term) more than $100 an hour or b) take a hell of a lot longer than 40 hours

    Define "decent"
     
  24. John_Harkes_6

    John_Harkes_6 New Member

    Mar 29, 2000
    Baltimore, MD.
    Hartwick - first of all, stop with the ridiculous "I'm not saying" in your posts because you are saying it. For the love of Kreis, if you are going to put an argument out there stand behind.

    All you have managed to do is cite vague statutes that might have an impact and proven that $1 per plantiff might mean something somewhere if the sun is at the right angle. What you failed repeatedly to do is to prove that a class-action lawsuit would be a valid and financially viable course of action in this example

    If you want to prove your point, answer these questions:

    - What state would the suit be filed in that has these loose laws that might let the suit go to trial

    - What violation would the suit accuse iNDemand of?

    - Give us the name of a lawyer willing to fight for $5K
     
  25. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    [ stepping out] It's just "Cirroc", your Honor.. and, yes, I'm ready. [ approaches the jury box ] Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.

    http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91gcaveman.phtml
     

Share This Page